advertising
-
1.
García-Río F , Serrano S & Dorgham A et al.: A bibliometric evaluation of European Union research of the respiratory system from 1987-1998. Eur Respir J 17: 1175, 2001.
-
2.
Vogt TM , Elston-Lafata J & Tolsma D et al.: The role of research in integrated healthcare systems: the HMO Research Network. Am J Manag Care 10: 643, 2004.
-
3.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information. The HIPAA Privacy Rule. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research, edited by Nass, SJ , Levit, LA , Gostin, LO National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009.
-
4.
The Value, Importance, and Oversight of Health Research. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9571/. Accessed October 1, 2017.
-
5.
University of Leeds: Research metrics: bibliometrics. Available at: https://library.leeds.ac.uk/researcher-bibliometrics-about. Accessed November 20, 2017.
-
6.
Young H & Belanger T: The ALA Glossary of Library Information and Science. Madrid, Spain: Editiones by Diaz de Santos; 1983.
-
7.
Haddad M: Use and relevance of bibliometrics for nursing. Nurs Stand 31: 55, 2017.
-
8.
Ellegaard O & Wallin J: The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: how great is the impact? Scientometrics 105: 1809, 2015.
-
9.
National Library of Medicine: MESH Database. Podiatry. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=podiatry. Accessed November 21, 2017.
-
10.
Barske HL & Baumhauer J: Quality of research and level of evidence in foot and ankle publications. Foot Ankle Int 33: 1, 2012.
-
11.
Malay DS , Schepers T & Bibbo C et al: Editor ial: the state of research in the realm of foot and ankle surgery. J Foot Ankle Surg 50: 1, 2011.
-
12.
Lazzarini PA , Geraghty J & Kinnear EM et al.: Research capacity and culture in podiatry: early observations within Queensland Health. J Foot Ankle Res 6: 1, 2013.
-
13.
RefWorks Web Based Bibliographic Management Software. Available at: https://www.refworks.com/. Accessed November 20, 2017.
-
14.
Sengupta IN: Bibliometrics, informetrics, scientometrics and librametrics: an overview. Libri 42: 75, 1992.
-
15.
Seglen PO: Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality. Allergy 52: 1050, 1997.
-
16.
Bradford SC & Egan ME Shera JH: Documentation, 2nd Ed, Crossby Lockwood, London, 1953.
-
17.
Povedano Montero FJ, López-Muñoz F, Hidalgo Santa Cruz F: Bibliometric analysis of the scientific production in the area of optometry. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 91: 160, 2016.
-
18.
Sgrò A , Al-Busaidi IS & Wells CI et al.: Global surgery: a 30-year bibliometric analysis (1987–2017). World J Surg 43: 2689, 2019.
-
19.
Williams CM & Lazzarini PA: The research capacity and culture of Australian podiatrists. J Foot Ankle Res 8: 11, 2015.
-
20.
Lazzarini PA , Geraghty J & Kinnear EM et al.: Research capacity and culture in podiatry: early observations within Queensland Health. J Foot Ankle Res 6: 1, 2013.
-
21.
Pickstone C , Nancarrow S & Cooke J et al.: Building research capacity in the allied health professions. Evid Policy 4: 53, 2008.
-
22.
Pager S , Holden L & Golenko X: Motivators, enablers, and barriers to building allied health research capacity. J Multidiscip Healthc 5: 53, 2012.
-
23.
UNESCO: Facts and figures: publications. UNESCO Science Report, Towards 2030. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/node/252282. Accessed June 15, 2018.
-
24.
Skipper JK Jr, & Hughes JE: Podiatry: a medical care specialty in quest of full professional status and recognition. Soc Sci Med 17: 1541, 1983.
-
25.
García-Río F , Serrano S & Dorgham A et al.: A bibliometric evaluation of European Union research of the respiratory system from 1987–1998. Eur Respir J 17: 1175, 2001.
-
26.
Royle P , Bain L & Waugh N: Systematic reviews of epidemiology in diabetes: finding the evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol 5: 2, 2005.
-
27.
Pestaña A: El MedLine como fuente de información bibliométrica de la producción española en biomedicina y ciencias médicas. Comparación con el Science Citation Index. Med Clin (Barc) 109: 506, 1997.
A Bibliometric Evaluation of Worldwide Research of the Podiatry Field from 1965 to 2017
Search for other papers by Laura Carrasco Cortijo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jose A. Quesada in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Adriana Lopez-Pineda in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Domingo Orozco-Beltrán in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Vicente F. Gil-Guillen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Concepcion Carratala-Munuera in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background
To identify the strengths and weaknesses in a given research area, it is necessary to analyze the published literature. International studies on podiatry research productivity are scarce. This study aimed to analyze scientific productivity in the area of podiatric medicine from 1965 to 2017.
Methods
This was a retrospective, observational, bibliometric study. The MEDLINE database was used to identify research published between 1965 and 2017. Literature searches were performed in 2010 and 2017 through RefWorks, and research production per year, author, document type, country, institution, journal, and language were calculated. Podiatry's contribution to global scientific production was measured by calculating the ratio of podiatry publications to total production, and Price's law was applied to analyze the temporal evolution. Author productivity index, coauthorship, geographic distribution, and the distribution by institution type and journal (Bradford's law) were analyzed.
Results
The MEDLINE search yielded 1,256 publications, representing 4.75 articles per 100,000 publications in global scientific research. The growth rate followed Price's law after linear adjustment. The 2,229 identified authors presented a transience index of 85.73%; 0.38% were highly productive authors. The coauthorship index increased from 1.40 in 1965 to 5.80 in 2017. The most common document type was the journal article, whereas 2.1% were clinical trials. Only one document reported a controlled clinical trial. The United States led scientific production, with 77.15% of the documents; 60.5% of the publications were concentrated in four journals.
Conclusions
Podiatry is still an emerging research field, and literature is concentrated in a small number of journals, categorized into different subjects.
Diabetic Foot Unit, Marques de Valdecilla University Hospital, Santander, Spain.
Catedra de Medicina de Familia, Clinical Medicine Department, Miguel Hernandez University, San Juan de Alicante, Spain.
advertising
advertising
